I drink. I eat potato chips. I spend way too much time looking at my phone.

But I’ve never been a smoker. The few times I tried, it tasted awful.

The smell never really goes away. I’m also too cheap.

That’s probably why my initial reaction to the U.K.’s lifetime ban on selling cigarettes to people born after 2008 was positive.

But then I wrote today’s feature story. Now I’m honestly not sure where I stand.

The breakdown is below. Take a read and you’ll see what I mean. Don’t forget to vote!

-Neil Malik

By locking an entire generation out of cigarettes, the payoff could be massive. If fewer people ever start, public health systems avoid decades of costly disease. Governments restrict risky behavior when the social cost is high and smoking is already no exception. Critics call it overreach, but supporters say prevention is better than cure.

Is it fair to draw a legal line that says one adult can smoke and another cannot? If governments can ban personal choices based on birth year, personal liberty starts to erode fast. Opponents argue prohibition can’t be enforced and there are less intrusive solutions. The goal is noble, but the method risks redefining what freedom actually means.